The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-04-09

SATURDAY. APRIL 8. 1887.
A QUESTION OF LEGAL ETIQUETTE.


an unusual scene took place, in
which a question of professional
legal etiquette arose. AN appeal
from a decision in the Police Court
in the case of Rex. VS.. Young Tang,
for unlawful possession of opium,
gave rise to the situation. The APP
pellant was fined 81 900 and costs
and sentenced to two years. impri-
sonment under the opium law of
1886. Messrs. John Il. Dare and
J. A. Magoon appeared for the de-
PENDANT in the Court below.
A difference of opinion as to the
appeal being tried before jury, or
before the Supreme Court in banco
arose. After Mr.. Dare had perfected
the appeal to the Court in banco, he
received letter signed by his
client, but apparently written by
Mr.. Magoon, requesting him to have
the appeal tried before jury, init
mating that if he did not do so his
services in the case would be dis
pensed with. He theTeupon with
drew from the case. Subsequently,
Young Tang, the appellant, in.
formed Mr.. Dare that the letter
written by Mr.. Magoon, dismissing
him (Mr. d. from the case was
not authorized by him Further
more, Young Tang desired Mr.. Dare
to continue in the case, and con-
duct it in Court.
In order to settle the point
whether Mr.. Dare was entitled to
appear as attorney in the case, the
Court ordered Young Tang to be
called and examined on oath. On
examination by the bench, Young
Tang deposed that he had at first
employed Mr.. Dare to act as his
attorney in this case, but Mr.. Dare
said it was best to have it tried
before the Court in banco. Witness
thep went to Mr.. Magoon's office to
inquire about it. Witness asked if
he (Magoon) had advised to bring
the case before jury or not, and
he said that he had, and that it was
decided to have the case tired before
a jury. Told him to prepare a
paper to give to Mr.. Dare to have
his case taken before a jury. After
wards Mr.. Dare came to know it
and asked witness how he came to
have his case tried before jury :
Told him that he had taken his case
before jury.
The Court: Did you ever sign q
paper 'dismissing Mr.. Dare as at
torney in your case?
Witness: l signed paper, but
do not know the contents of it.
was simply told that my case is
to be tried before jury; that is all
heard. l signed piece of paper
and ! understood that it meant that
the case would come before a jury.
IS would prefer that the case be tried
before the Court in banco. Afli-
davit March 4, 1887, notifying the
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the
dismissal of Mr.. Dare handed wit
ness. That is my signature. 1
did not know the contents of that
letter.
After further examination and
also cross-examination by Mr.. Ma
COON, the Chief Justice said: "We
reinstate Mr.. Dare fully in the
CASE"
Addressing Mr.. Magoon, the
Chief Justice said: "The Court was
not perfectly satisfied with his con-
duct in this case, and that an op-
portunity would be afforded him Of
clearing up the matter satisfactorily
in his own way by aflidavits, as to
his action in procuring the dismissal
of a brother attorney from case in
which both were engaged"
In reply to Mr.. Magoon, the
Chief Justice said: ''You are charg-
ed with procuring the dismissal of a
brother attorney from a case with
out communicating with him, and
apparently without the approval or
knowledge of your client. 1t should
be left entirely with a client to say
what he would have done with it. :"
The appellant was remanded until
Saturday. Mr.. Magoon intimated
that after what had happened, lie
II, 4.